The Absolute Sound vs Pleasing Sound

**** Whoever it was, remain in hiding, because it makes no sense.****

Isn’t projection a fascinating thing? Moments before reading the most recent posts here I stumbled across a series of comments on another thread about the author of the above comment; a, er..., “popular” subject of discussion, btw. In one of those comments it was pointed out how said author “goes into hiding” when confronted and called out for his typically demeaning attitude. I won’t bother; always better to keep idiocy out in the open.

The best sound i have achieved is going for the microphone feed sound when you achieve a sound like that you never go back to a pleasing or euphoric sound you just hear the recordings and music so much better.

@audiorusty,

**** I am a tad confused. When I read about those that use an acoustic performance as their standard for measuring their system. When you are listening to the performance at a venue, are you not hearing the combination of the performer(s) and the venues acoustics? ****

Fair question which goes to the meat of the OP’s question.

Have you ever been walking down the street and heard the sound of a musician practicing his instrument (or a singer vocalizing) wafting out of an open window? Even from a block away one can tell that it is the sound of a live person playing his instrument and not a recording. Perhaps it is a Jazz quartet practicing. Or, one is at a street fair and from a good distance away, still out of sight, one can hear a band playing. Talk about different venues!! What is it about that sound that so immediately tells us that it is the sound of live and not a.recording? It is the immediacy of the sound, the sense of aliveness (richness of dynamic nuance) in the music and the richness of timbral detail; all without the addition to the sound of the electronic artifacts which are the inevitable byproducts of the amplification/ “sound reinforcement” and record/reproduce processes. Even if that band at the street fair happens to be a Rock band playing electronic instruments, the immediacy of the sound and absence of ADDITIONAL electronic artifacts tells us that the sound is live and not a recording.

The case for the use of recordings of acoustic instruments as “standard for measuring their system” is simply because there are far fewer variables to confuse matters. In amplified performances, not only does one have the sound of the instruments themselves (yes, a Strat has a different timbral signature than a Gibson), but one also has the variables of the amplifiers, cabling, mics, PA, sound board, etc.; not to mention the engineer’s whim.

You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.  In the absence of all that amplification gear, the sound remains closest to and with the immediacy and richness of timbral detail of that sound wafting out the window.

I hope that helps.

Reading your post I understand why some musician could enligntened very simple fact that has been forgotten when we compare amplifiers or dac, or anything audio....

Thanks...

You are correct. All concert halls have different sounds. However, those differences and their effects on the timbral (tonal quality) and dynamic detail of the sound of musical instruments are far less than the effects of the electronics of amplification.

I will add that all rooms and theaters or recording studio has something in common when they modify by their geometry, topology and their acoustic content the possible lived sound event , the common universal acoustical laws, which are akin to the vocabulary and syntax in any language, each room speaking his own acoustical language.These acoustical universal laws are what make possible the translation of one acoustic condition, the room or theater of the lived orginal event, into an another acoustical circonstances and conditions, the room of the listener....This possible translation is made WITH ADDED ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL NOISE tough when we go from the original event to our room listening the same concert for example....

This translation is modified with some ADDED electronic noise, mechanical and electrical, that we must CONTROL or decrease in our room to make possible the RECREATION of the "timbre" dynamical event with the less distortion possible.... When we recognize the musical timbre that come from our audio system, it must be the more resembling possible to the musical timbre coming from the original event in spite of the addition of the inevitable mechanical and electrical noise added by the audio electronic and the choices from the recording of the lived event... When we have this relatively natural timbre perception tough in our room, it means that our audio system is relatively rightfully embedded in his working dimensions....

It is the reason why the acoustic of our room being the acoustic translator of the original event is more important than the gear itself most of the times....



«Ears recognize sounds in any room and in any language»-Anonymus Acoustician

«The heart feel the music of any country like his own»- Anonymus Musician

«Mother’s song is the ancester of all language»-Anonymus Son

«Are you saying that the mother’s womb is at the same time the first recording studio and listening theater?»-Zeppo Marx

«Timbre’s speech is the template of music»-Anonymus Linguist

«Are you saying that God speak before making music or noise?»-Chico Marx

«Is there not too much intelligent design here?»-Harpo Marx

«Not at all,mother was our original goddess»-Groucho Marx